RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2002-03400
INDEX CODE: 110.02
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His general discharge be updated to honorable.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He should have been allowed probation and rehabilitation (P&I) prior
to discharge; that the offense that led to his discharge was the only
offense and that it was a first time offense; that he was one of four
individuals identified yet only he was singled out for punishment; and
that he knows he made a mistake.
Applicant’s submission, with attachment, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
Applicant contracted his enlistment with the Regular Air Force on 9
March 1981. He was progressively promoted to the grade of Senior
Airman (SRA/E-4) with a date of rank of 1 December 1983.
Applicant received an Article 15 on 2 October 1984 for use and
possession of marijuana. His punishment consisted of a suspended
reduction in grade to Airman First Class (A1C/E-3), forfeiture of $200
and restriction to the base for 30 days.
On 15 October 1984, the applicant received notification that he was
being recommended for discharge due to misconduct. He received a
general discharge without probation and rehabilitation under the
provisions of AFR 39-10, Misconduct - Drug Abuse. He had completed a
total of 3 years and 8 months and was serving in the grade of SRA at
the time of discharge.
Applicant appealed his general discharge to the Discharge Review Board
(DRB); however, the DRB denied his appeal.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
HQ AFPC/DPPRS recommends denial. DPPRS states that the discharge was
consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the
discharge regulation. DPPRS notes the DRB denial of the applicant’s
appeal on 13 March 1986. The applicant failed to submit any new
evidence or identify any errors or injustices that occurred during the
discharge processing. (Exhibit C)
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
Applicant explains that there was a misunderstanding between him and
his commander at the interview following the use and possession of
marijuana incident. Applicant contends that he misunderstood the
questions his commander asked and thereby did not provide adequate
answers.
Applicant questions why he was not offered a chance at probation and
rehabilitation (P&R).
Applicant's complete statement with attachments is at Exhibit E.
_________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:
1. The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing law
or regulations.
2. The application was not timely filed; however, it is in the
interest of justice to excuse the failure to timely file.
3. Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the
existence of an injustice warranting upgrade of applicant’s discharge
to honorable. While the discharge action taken against the applicant
appears to be appropriate, we believe that the character of his
discharge was unduly harsh. In this respect, we note that his record
of performance prior to the incident which led to his discharge, was
excellent. In addition, we note that applicant’s commander had
recommended him for probation and rehabilitation (P&R), which, in our
opinion, the commander felt that the applicant had the potential to
overcome his misconduct and return to duty. While the action by the
legal advisor not to recommend P&R was within his authority, as stated
above, we believe that the issuance of a general discharge was harsh.
In view of the above findings, we recommend applicant’s discharge be
upgraded to honorable.
_________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:
The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force
relating to APPLICANT be corrected to show that on 9 November 1984, he
was honorably discharged and furnished an Honorable Discharge
certificate under the provisions of AFI 36-3208, paragraph 1.2
(Secretarial Authority.)
_________________________________________________________________
The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number BC-
2002-03400 in Executive Session on 9 April 2003, under the provisions
of AFI 36-2603:
Mr. Michael K. Gallogly, Panel Chair
Ms. Martha Maust, Member
Mr. Billy C. Baxter, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 17 Oct 02, w/atch.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPRS, dated 13 Nov 02.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 22 Nov 02
Exhibit E. Letter, Applicant, undated, w/atch.
MICHAEL K. GALLOGLY
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-02481
_________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He should have received an honorable discharge and asks that his records be reviewed towards that end. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPPRS recommended denial. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-02943
The applicant, while serving in the grade of airman basic, was discharged from the Air Force on 3 August 1984 under the provisions of AFR 39-10 (Misconduct - Pattern of Conduct Prejudicial to Good Order and Discipline) with a general (under honorable conditions) discharge. Pursuant to the Board’s request, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Clarksburg, West Virginia, provided an investigative report which is attached at Exhibit...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-03877
In support of his appeal, applicant submitted a copy of a letter from his squadron commander to the wing staff judge advocate, dated 25 Jun 01, outlining why the applicant did not meet retention requirements. At the time members are separated from the Air Force, they are furnished an RE code predicated upon the quality of their service and circumstances of their separation. ___________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2006-03606
Applicant was discharged on 10 May 84, in the grade of airman first class (E-3), under the provisions of AFR 39-10, Misconduct-Pattern of Minor Disciplinary Infractions, and received an under honorable conditions (general) discharge. ___________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: HQ AFPC/DPPRS recommends the application be denied, and states, in part, based on the documentation on file in the master personnel records, the discharge was consistent...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-02457
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2003-02457 INDEX CODE: 110.02 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His general (Under Honorable Conditions) discharge be upgraded to honorable. He was discharged effective 24 December 1986, with a general, (Under Honorable Conditions) discharge after serving one year, four months, and twenty-four...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-02860
The Recommendation Letter and Legal Review could not be found in the available records. As he has provided no facts warranting a change in his discharge, denial is recommended. After a thorough review of the evidence of record, we conclude the general discharge was appropriate given the applicant’s misconduct and that the RE code, which was driven by the discharge, is correct.
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-02302
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 02-02302 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The characterization of his discharge be upgraded from general (under honorable conditions) to honorable and the narrative reason for separation and reentry (RE) code be changed to allow him to serve his country once again. ...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-04057
On 16 February 1984, the applicant received notification that he was being recommended for discharge for misconduct. On 13 March 1984, the discharge authority approved the recommended separation and directed that the applicant be issued a general discharge. On 3 March 1985, the applicant applied to the Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records (AFBCMR) to have his RE code of 2B changed.
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-01619
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2005- 01619 INDEX CODE: 110.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 17 NOVEMBER 2006 ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His under honorable conditions (general) discharge be upgraded to honorable. During his correctional custody applicant received 45 letters of counseling. Applicant was discharged...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-02269
As of this date, this office has received no response (Exhibit D & E). The discharge appears to be in compliance with the governing regulation and we find no evidence to indicate that his separation from the Air Force was inappropriate. We find no evidence of error in this case and after thoroughly reviewing the documentation that has been submitted in support of the applicant’s appeal, we do not believe he has suffered from an injustice.